The way to neuter civil liberties and split America into two countries: Evade the Supreme Court

A Jan. 5, 2023 article in the New Yorker written by Jeannie Suk Gersen, the John H. Watson, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, describes a brilliant avenue of legal attack to undermine civil liberties by evading the Supreme Court. The first major success for this evasion tactic was scored in a decision that upheld a cherished goal that the radical right Christian nationalists have long sought in their quest to neuter civil liberties.  

The law at issue was Texas Senate Bill 8, which banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. Similar past laws always failed due to Roe v. Wade. But this time, the anti-abortion law was drafted differently. What was new and different was that SB8 provided that only private citizens, not the state, could enforce the law. Because of this citizen enforcement scheme, there was no defendant for pro-abortion plaintiffs to sue in court. That effectively pushed the Supreme Court out of the picture.

The New Yorker writes:

On the day that the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the lawyer Jonathan Mitchell was at the National Association of Christian Lawmakers conference, where he was to receive an award for having enabled “the most successful pro-life legislation to date.” Mitchell was the author of the legislation that had effectively ended abortion access—first in Texas and then in Oklahoma—while Roe was still good law.

Unlike most lawyers and legal scholars who profess to be committed to the rule of law, Mitchell does not find it disturbing that several states, following his advice, managed to nullify a constitutional right long before the Supreme Court did. That is because his mission is to undermine the Court itself as the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. He first laid out his arguments in several law-review articles, one of which proposed that legislatures could “overcome federal-court rulings” they oppose by drafting statutes that insulate them from judicial review. He then put his arguments into practice, using abortion as the perfect test case.

Senate Bill 8, which Texas enacted in September, 2021, banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. Since Roe, such bans had not survived constitutional challenges in court. But, rather than put any state officials in charge of enforcing the ban, Mitchell saw to it that S.B. 8 would empower only private citizens to enforce it, by suing abortion providers (or any aiders and abettors) in state court. Abortion clinics, scared of being sued, largely fell in line, following the new restrictions or closing entirely—even though the legislation clearly defied the Court’s abortion cases. Whole Woman’s Health and others sued Texas officials, in an effort to block the ban, but Mitchell felt confident that they would be unsuccessful, because state officials had no part in enforcing the ban. By his design, there was no defendant to sue—and that meant a law openly flouting the Supreme Court’s constitutional precedents could remain in effect.

When the abortion providers’ case reached the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan was scathing about the notion that “after, oh, these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade” the Court’s command “that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights.” Conservative Justices sounded troubled by it, too. But then five conservatives largely acquiesced in the scheme to shield the statute from judicial review, even though, as Chief Justice John Roberts lamented in dissent, “the clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings.” More than six months before the Court overruled Roe, the Court gave its blessing to box out the federal judiciary itself.  

For more than a year, Mitchell has mostly refused to talk to journalists on the record. But, in the past months, he agreed to conversations with me, in which he emphasized the broader stakes of the tactic for which he became known. Early on, Mitchell insisted that, although he personally opposes abortion, “I’m not an anti-abortion activist. I never have been.” His goal is to destroy “judicial supremacy”—the idea that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution—a campaign with bipartisan potential at a moment when liberals and progressives have little to gain from an imposing conservative Court. Liberal legislatures, for example, may wish to defy unfavorable precedents on guns, campaign finance, free speech, and voting rights.

This article has finally tipped me into a (slowly growing) belief that it is slightly more likely than not (~53% chance?) that America is destined to split into two or maybe three separate nations within the next ~12-15 years. What is at issue here goes directly back to the bitter, never resolved disagreements among the drafters of the Constitution. They never agreed about the scope, shape or power of the central government. That included bitter disagreement about the scope of power of the Supreme Court. In 1803, the Supreme Court itself declared that it alone was the final decider of what is constitutional and what isn’t. That assumption of power came in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision. 

Through the 1900s until recent years, that assumption was largely accepted. That was a core unifying principle that everyone except fringe extremists respected. That was necessary to hold America together. 

But decades of radical right propaganda and relentless legal attacks has finally led to reopening debate over literally everything in the Constitution, including all of the Amendments. Everything is now back on the table. This is no longer a fringe extremist argument. It has effectively gutted abortion and significantly neutered the Supreme Court, at least for civil liberties that are not enumerated in the Constitution and Amendments. 

The seeds of destruction of a single, secular America have been planted and sprouted. Now we get to watch the poison plants grow and kill what has been built since the founding of the Republic.

News bits: Fascist violence in New Mexico, etc.

Is fascist violence becoming a new American normal?: The NYT writes about recent shootings at homes and offices of five New Mexico Democrats:

No one was injured in the shootings, which occurred in Albuquerque between Dec. 4 and Thursday. The authorities are investigating whether they were related and politically motivated.

No one was injured in the shootings in Albuquerque involving three residences, a workplace and a campaign office associated with a pair of county commissioners, two state senators and New Mexico’s newly elected attorney general. Three of the shootings took place in December and two this month, the latest of which was on Thursday, the authorities said.

The Albuquerque police chief, Harold Medina, said at a news conference on Thursday that there could be a pattern to the shootings, possibly tied to political affiliation.  

The department did not announce the shootings earlier, he said, because it was not clear in December whether there might be a pattern.

Mayor Tim Keller of Albuquerque said the authorities were concerned that the shootings might have been targeted and were “possibly politically motivated.”

So far, there are no suspects in custody. The shootings could be by one or more individuals or groups. It could be by a single insane person. The shootings could be by an enraged communist who thinks that Democrats are tyrants. Or it could be a rabid Christian nationalist who thinks that Democrats are pedophilic, cannibalistic agents of Satan who have been vaccinated against Satan’s atheism-inducing COVID vaccine. There are all kinds of angry nutjobs, freaks, cranks and crackpots out there who could have done this. So, there’s all of that.

But -- there is almost always a but. But, relevant political circumstances here include normalization of violence, intolerant extremism and publicly expressed hate of liberals and Democrats by some of America’s fascist radical right. The first thought that comes to mind is that the shootings are politically motivated by a Republican fascist or Christofascist. Political circumstances also include these public comments by Faux News very own Tucker Carlson, arguably the current leading propagandist, liar and slanderer working for American fascism:

“That loathing [of liberals] clouded my judgment. I was like, ‘I dislike these people so much. What they’re doing is so wrong. It is helping so few people and hurting so many. It’s so immoral on every level that I just want it to be repudiated.’ And I wanted that so much, not because I like the Republicans — I really dislike them more than I ever have [he is a liar on this point] — but I dislike the other side more. I did learn that, like, I have no freaking idea what goes on in American politics.[he is a liar on this point -- he knows exactly what is going on]”

One can reasonably ask if it is irrational, unfair, wrong and/or unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that one or more fascist Republicans are responsible for this violence. Maybe that is more true than false. But in view of the poisoned, radicalized politics and polarizing propaganda the radical right has fomented for decades, why give fascism or the fascists the benefit of one shred of doubt? If evidence comes to light that these shootings were not by a politically motivated fascist, then this initial conclusion will be wrong. This is just a matter of the radical right reaping one of the important things it has ruthlessly sown for decades, namely distrust.

Qs: What harm is there in drawing what appears to be a reasonable initial conclusion and then revising it if contradictory evidence comes to light? Is that more anti-democracy than pro-democracy, or is it mostly democracy-neutral?

Democratic New Mexico State Senator Linda Lopez 

Eight shots were fired at her home in Albuquerque on Tuesday

-------------------------

-------------------------

A historian’s take on the dangerous state of American politics: A NYT opinion by Yale history professor Joanne Freeman discusses the election of McCarthy to House Speaker. She is an expert on political violence in American politics. She writes:

It’s Tempting to Laugh at McCarthy’s Struggles, 

but History Shows That This Type of Chaos Is Not a Joke

In recent days, we’ve watched congressional Republicans reap the whirlwind. In campaigning for the 2022 midterm elections, the G.O.P. rode a wave of extremism, saying little about the politics of hate and denial practiced by some of its candidates in an effort to capture votes.

The party is now paying a price for its silence. Its members are grappling with the reality of working with people who loudly and proudly challenge political institutions and the democratic process — in a democratic institution. During the speakership battle, that small group of extremists held the House of Representatives hostage.

This was far from the first time the House was mired in a stalemate over the speakership. It’s the 15th such battle in Congress’s history, and the ninth time that electing a speaker required more than three ballots.

There’s little good faith in today’s House. After years of election denial, promises broken and lies abounding, the left has little faith in the right. And some parts of the right have little trust in their own most extreme members who skillfully practice a politics of personality — playing to their constituents and to the nation at large with sweeping claims and broad denials, personal attacks on the opposition, and a willingness to upset core tenets of democracy, all with joyful exuberance at damage done.

The resulting speakership struggle was not about an issue. It was not about a policy. It was about power. Kevin McCarthy’s reported concession to empower the extreme right by making it easier to oust him as speaker was a surrender of power — and that’s all a potential speaker has to offer in today’s political climate. Promises to support key bills or logrolling mean nothing in a party that has very little real planned legislation and very few policies.

It’s tempting to laugh at the strut and fret that took place in the House, much of it seemingly signifying nothing. But it was not just theatrics, and it was not a joke. It was a symptom of a dysfunctional party that is questionably anchored in a democratic politics, and a glaringly obvious sign of things to come. Given Mike Rogers’s near-lunge at Matt Gaetz on Friday night, it’s also an eerie echo of things past.**

** That refers to previous instances where the House could not decide on a Speaker due to policy differences, most prominently over the fate of slavery. Physical fights in the House occurred. Here, the GOP fight was over power, not policy, making this much more dangerous than past fights. In authoritarian regimes, power is king, while in democracies, policy is supposed to be king.

The House has elected a speaker, but that won’t put an end to the internecine Republican battles. They will continue, entangling Congress and stymieing national politics in the process. Politics is a team sport that requires captains, congressional politics, even more so. Today’s congressional Republicans are not a team; they have no captain and they have displayed their failings for all the world to see.

In effect, we’re witnessing the rupture of the Republican Party, the ultimate outcome of Republicans’ continuing failure to stand up to the extremism in their ranks. In choosing to remain silent in the face of their right wing’s politics of destruction, they have essentially endorsed it. Their silence in the face of Donald Trump’s lies and his election loss denial did much the same, laying the groundwork for the upheaval that we’re watching now.

It’s encouraging to think that there are moderate Republicans who don’t support this brand of politics. There are certainly many. But until they organize themselves and oppose their in-house opposition, they’re pushing the nation ever closer to a dangerous edge — and defining the Republican Party in the process.

Q: Is Dr. Freeman correct to say that there are many moderate Republicans in power, or are most of moderate Republicans gone, having been RINO hunted out of power like Liz Cheney? Exactly what is a moderate Republican these days?

News bits: McCarthy becomes House Speaker, etc.

McCarthy is Speaker, so now what?: To me, the situation has gone from seriously bad to significantly worse. The NYT sums it like this:

As the Republican leader has made concessions to the far right, he has effectively agreed to give them carte blanche to disrupt the workings of the House — and to hold him hostage to their demands

The United States should brace for the likelihood of a Congress in perpetual disarray for the next two years.

The recipe for the chaos already existed: A toxic combination of the Republicans’ slim governing majority, an unyielding hard-right flank that disdains the normal operations of government and a candidate for speaker who has repeatedly bowed to that flank in his quest for power.

In a recent comment PD argued that, lacking an iron fisted leader, GOP elites are not fascist, but instead constitute a toxic political force driven mostly by “good old American nihilism and avaricious individualism.” Trump has fallen from the position of iron-fisted tyrant-leader to a person with less power. Regardless of what the Republican elites are, and maybe they are two or more different things, the road ahead looks bad for democracy, civil liberties, social spending, and a reasonably functioning federal government. 

The ~20 holdouts are rabidly anti-government opportunists. Unless the other Republicans choose to work with Democrats and commit the treason they call compromise, the 20 have veto power over whatever the House does. They intend to gut social security, Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending programs when the current spending authorization runs out next September. They claim to be willing to refuse to increase the debt limit when necessary. That gives them the leverage to gut domestic spending programs when the time comes next fall.

Q: Should House Democrats have voted for McCarthy, thereby avoiding the transfer of power to the 20 radical anti-government extremists, or would that have made no difference?

-------------------------

-------------------------

Corporations quietly sneak back to the GOP: In the wake if the 1/6 coup attempt, CREW writes on Jan. 6, 2023 about where corporate sympathies currently lie:

• In the days after January 6th, at least 231 corporations and industry groups pledged to stop, pause, or re-evaluate their political giving to the 147 members of the so-called Sedition Caucus. Two years into their commitments, 65 companies have kept their promises not to give, while the rest have resumed giving.
• 1,345 corporate and industry group PACs have given $50.5 million directly to the campaigns or leadership PACs of members of the Sedition Caucus, and $18.9 million to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).
• The top 5 corporate PAC donors since January 6th are Koch Industries ($1,374,500), Boeing ($936,500), Valero Energy ($827,500), Home Depot ($790,000), and AT&T ($786,900).

In the days that followed, at least 231 corporations and industry groups pledged to stop, pause, or re-evaluate their political giving to the 147 members of the so-called Sedition Caucus. CREW has been tracking all corporate PAC contributions to these members since then, from companies that made a commitment and companies that did not. By January 6th the following year, 130 of the companies that had made commitments, including many that strongly condemned the violence and attack on our democracy at the time, had started giving again through their affiliated PACs. Two years into their commitments, 65 companies have kept their promises not to give, while the rest have resumed giving, often quietly and without making a public statement.

For brass knuckles capitalism and capitalists money talks, while inconvenient truth, democracy, the public interest, the environment, civil liberties and most everything else walks.

-------------------------

-------------------------

From the land of no gun safety laws: The NYT writes about another sad school shooting:

A 6-year-old first-grader at an elementary school in Newport News, Va., shot a teacher on Friday afternoon during an altercation in a classroom, the authorities said, leaving her with “life-threatening” injuries and renewing calls for greater gun restrictions.

The boy, who shot the teacher once with a handgun at about 2 p.m., was in police custody on Friday evening, Steve Drew, the chief of the Newport News Police Department, said at a news conference.

Will something be done to control this kind of senseless violence? Other than sending out useless thoughts and prayers, can anything be done now that the radical right Supreme Court has made it almost impossible impose gun safety laws? There is plenty of public support for reasonable gun safety laws, but the Republican Supreme Court opposes gun safety and does not care about public opinion.

-------------------------

-------------------------

Additional commentary on the House Speaker position and the Republican Party: A NYT opinion piece opines:

Why the Fringiest Fringe of the G.O.P. 

Now Has So Much Power Over the Party

This Washington drama reflects larger structural forces that are changing American democracy.

Revolutions in communications and technology have transformed our democracy in more profound ways than just the more familiar issues of misinformation, hate speech and the like. They have enabled individual members of Congress to function, even thrive, as free agents. They have flattened institutional authority, including that of the political parties and their leaders. They have allowed individuals and groups to more easily mobilize and sustain opposition to government action and help fuel intense factional conflicts within the parties that leadership has greater difficulty controlling than in the past.

Through cable television and social media, even politicians in their first years in office can cultivate a national audience. When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez entered Congress, she already had nine million followers on the major social media platforms, more than four times the number for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and an order of magnitude more than any other Democrat in the House. Recognizing the power social media provides, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and a provocateur in the opposition to Kevin McCarthy’s speakership bid, has said he wants to be the A.O.C. of the right.

The internet has also generated an explosion of small-donor donations, which enables politicians to raise large amounts of money without depending on party funds or large donors.

Once again, one can see that social media exerts a major influence on politics. It conveys both honest, unifying speech and dishonest, divisive speech. Unfortunately in view of how the human brain-mind works, the latter is a lot more influential than the former. That’s probably why is it so popular and persistent.

I wonder if AOC’s social media speech is as divisive and dishonest as what Matt Gaetz puts out. In view of modern circumstances, maybe a politician has to be aggressive and opportunist. Does that mean they also have to rely heavily on deceit, lies, slanders, fomenting irrational emotion, and crackpot reasoning, e.g., like the fabulist liars George Santos and Trump?

About Missed Opportunities

 

 

There is nothing more heartbreaking than a squandered opportunity, a missed chance.

 ― Ottessa Moshfegh

INDEED!

Right now Kevin McCarthy is making concessions to the extreme right to get him to 218. And the Dems? Eating popcorn? Enjoying the shit show? 

Listening to Michael Smerconish this morning, he wondered if the Dems aren't passing up an opportunity.

WHY are THEY not negotiating with the Republicans to get one of their choices, even McCarthy, over the finish line? AND get some concessions in return? So instead of the radical right getting concessions, moderates and Dems get some.

Consider this:

Democrat Mary Peltola open to forming coalition majority with Republicans

Liz Ruskin, a D.C. correspondent for Alaska Public Media, tweeted that Peltola said that she supports House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) for the Speakership, but she is open to discussion if House members want to form a coalition majority, as often happens in Alaska. 

“Anything that gets us communicating with each other rather than talking at each other would be a good thing at this point,” she said. 

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told CNN on Wednesday that he was in “preliminary talks” with Democrats to support a consensus candidate but wanted to hold off on sharing details of the discussions to not get ahead of where negotiations stood.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/democrat-mary-peltola-open-to-forming-coalition-majority-with-republicans/ar-AA161fkZ?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=0a1df9634e674f63bf25783fed8cd6a9

Imagine spanking them thar radicals, AND getting some of them thar concessions of your own!

AND as an added bonus:

Rep. Matt Gaetz threatened to quit Congress Thursday if House Republicans make a deal with Democrats to elect a GOP speaker ― and his critics were hilariously eager for him to make good on that pledge.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/matt-gaetz-i-will-resign-laura-ingraham_n_63b8065de4b0ae9de1bd8ab0

NOW THAT ALONE WOULD MAKE A DEAL BETWEEN DEMS AND REPUBS WORTH WHILE!

News Bits: Are there any lessons from the House Speaker votes, etc.

Lessons from House Speaker voting?: What seems to be emerging is a split between a minority of Republican arsonists who just want to burn down democracy and a majority voting for Kevin McCarthy that wants to mostly continue with the current Christofascist agenda. The arsonists seem to be willing to wreck the entire system and then try to grab power in the ensuing chaos. If I recall right, one commentator (historian Timothy Snyder) described the situation as a bitter dispute between the mainstream pro-McCarthy gamers, out for power and wealth, and a minority of burners, who are out for total destruction of the current system.

As one can see from this video, the arsonists are unable to articulate a rational way forward. Even Faux News, which is mainstream Republican Christofascist, is unable to even talk with the arsonists. Apparently, they are waiting for the majority of mainstream Republican Christofascists to cave in to all of their demands. That looks to me like a war between mainstream anti-democratic Republican Christofascism and some ill-defined form anti-democratic Republican tyranny-anarchy.

-----------------

-----------------

From the Lying Republican Elite Liar Files: Recall back a week or two or three ago. Back then, I posted about Ginny Thomas who, despite being an Republican activist for decades claimed to be not interested an politics and never speaking with her husband (Clarence Thomas) about politics, elections, Supreme Court cases or anything else for central interest to her and her husband? That darned 1/6 Committee final report. It is just chock full of lies by shamelessly mendacious, morally rotted Republican elites. Above the Law reports:

Ginni Thomas read an opening statement to committee: “I can guarantee that my husband has never spoken with me about pending cases at the Court. It’s an iron clad rule in our home.” (both statements are lies) She said that Clarence Thomas is “uninterested in politics.” (that is a lie)

She claimed she did not speak “at all about the details of my volunteer campaign activities” (a lie) and that “I did not speak with him at all about the details of my post election activities, which were minimal” (a lie) she added “he was completely unaware” (a lie) of my texts with Mark Meadows.   

But of note is what her husband — a Supreme Court justice who had *repeatedly* refused to recuse himself on matters related to the 2020 election — was up to at that time.  

And the public is just supposed to swallow the tale that it is pure coincidence that Clarence has to adjudicate all manner of controversies that intersect with his wife’s interests — even before Ginni’s post-election advocacy made Clarence’s votes on matters related to the January 6th committee super suspect.  

But Ginni says she regrets the “tone and content” of her texts — but tellingly testified, “I’m regretting that they became public.” (that is true!) Because it’s not that she tried with increasingly desperate measures to overturn a democratic election, it’s that she got caught.

Wow: Ginni Thomas confirms that she had a conversation with her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, apparently about the election—while she was trying to overturn it—then texted Mark Meadows that she "needed" it to "try to keep holding on." https://t.co/fnQVOpgYUu pic.twitter.com/jQ2ZyKz33C

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 30, 2022

A constant stream of evidence like this indicates that Republican elites have fully normalized lying. This is what one gets when sacred ends justify immoral and illegal means. Apparently, there is not one shred of shame or morality left in most or any Republican Party elites.  

-----------------

-----------------

Democrats wake up to the immigration problem at the border: The NYT writes: 

President Biden on Thursday announced a far-reaching crackdown on people who seek refuge at the border with Mexico, dramatically expanding restrictions on asylum in the most aggressive effort of his administration to discourage migrants from crossing into the United States.

In remarks at the White House that drew immediate condemnation from human rights organizations, Mr. Biden said his administration would deny people from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti the chance to apply for asylum if they cross the Mexican border without authorization between official ports of entry.

If this is for real and Biden actually gets the border mess mostly under control, that arguably significantly increases his chances of re-election. This could significantly neuter one of the top two or three propaganda points the Christofascist right has been demagoguing for years to get millions of votes. 

It is not the case that the radical right is wrong about border immigration being a broken mess. It is a broken mess. Many (most?) of those asylum seekers are not asylum seekers. They are desperate people looking for a better way of life. One can sympathize with that. But this is a key issue that has fueled the rise of American Christofascism and undeniably caused increased overpopulation in the US. In my opinion, getting immigration under control is critically important for defense of American democracy, quality of life and environmental protection. 

As time passes, I like and support Biden more and more. I underestimated him. The problem is his age. But even if he runs in 2024, wins and then has to resign due to failing health, that is far better than having to face a president Trump, DeSantis, Scott or whatever other Christofascist liar that Republicans nominate.

Complaints that fascist elites mostly right rely on to win rank & file support

CONTEXT

This post has been on my mind for months. Exactly what horrors of oppression, immorality, tyranny and/or evil is it that has turned tens of millions of Americans into supporters of an openly anti-democratic, Christofascist Republican Party? For context, these comments from an article in the Hill seem to exemplify the mindset of terror, moral outrage and hate of Democrats and liberals that the American radical right generally seems to hold: 

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in an interview released Monday that his “hatred” of liberals led to his inaccurate predictions of a red wave in November’s midterm elections.

“That loathing clouded my judgment,” Carlson told Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, in an interview released on Monday. “I was like, ‘I dislike these people so much. What they’re doing is so wrong. It is helping so few people and hurting so many. It’s so immoral on every level that I just want it to be repudiated.’”

“And I wanted that so much, not because I like the Republicans — I really dislike them more than I ever have — but I dislike the other side more,” he added, saying, “I did learn that, like, I have no freaking idea what goes on in American politics.”

I very much doubt that Carlson is being even a little honest here. For example, he probably loves Republicans because they make him rich and powerful. What’s not to love about that? 

Instead, he is a clever grifter, liar and slanderer who knows how to spin a false narrative that is loaded with virtue signaling to his audience. The lies and slanders are soothing and reassuring to his fleeced, deceived, radicalized flock. But at the same time he excuses a false narrative he sold to them to keep them fleeced, deceived and radicalized. That is first rate propaganda. Kudos to Tucker the fascist for sliming his audience so professionally.

One thing to note, Tucker like most professional Republican slanderers, doesn’t specify any complaints. Instead he relies on the tried and true propaganda tactic of slandering the left in in generalities, e.g., liberals are immoral on every level, and they hurt many and help so few. There is no specific complaint is leveled here. Just generalized slanders. The drivel that Tucker delivers to his flock is misinformation (intended to deceive) and malinformation (intended to harm). Little to nothing of substance is in it.

What are the complaints?

So, exactly what is it the fascist right complains of? Exactly what oppression, moral turpitude, evil, tyranny, etc., have those tens of millions of fascism-supporting rank and file radicals personally experienced? Maybe if the list of main complaints was made explicit, that would at least clarify what the fascists are constantly bitching and howling about. 

Searching the web suggests these are among the top horrors and/or persecutions that Christofascist elites and its propaganda Leviathan, e.g., Tucker and Faux News, have firmly convinced the rank and file they constantly suffer under at the hands of the evil liberals. Some poll data indicates that (i) both sides do not understand each other’s motivations, and (ii) both sides are deeply cynical about each other, with Republicans somewhat more cynical than Democrats. People are baffled. One woman commented about the Democrats:

The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, “This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.”[1]

COVID vaccines slaughter tens of millions: A recent Rasmussen poll comments:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that (49%) of American Adults believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths, including 28% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t say a significant number of deaths have been caused by vaccine side effects, including 17% who believe it’s Not At All Likely. Another 14% are not sure.

Just like there is no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump or anyone else via massive vote fraud, there is no reality of massive human deaths from COVID vaccines. COVID vaccines are safe. Period. 

This horror is an illusion, not a reality. Maybe this is the faux liberal harm to so many that Tucker the liar had in mind when he slandered the left alleging that liberal policy harms lots of people. 

Liberal regulation of businesses is socialist-communist tyranny: Businesses and brass knuckles capitalists constantly howl that businesses are taxed and regulated to death. Republicans in congress, federal courts and the White House and their main financial donors loudly pound the table and gridlock the government to cut regulations and taxes in the name of the debunked horse and sparrow economic theory. For example, congressional Republicans want to extend tax cuts in their 2017 tax cutting and debt increasing law that are set to expire.

The elite Republican propaganda Leviathan consistently refuses to mention two major inconvenient truths that contradict this alleged liberal-socialist/communist horror. First, Republican business deregulations shift power and liberty to businesses, taking it from government and the people. For an obvious reason, that is something the elites never mention. What liberals want is not socialist or communist tyranny. They want reasonably regulated capitalism. What republicans want is capitalist tyranny with consumers and labor neutered as much as possible.

Second, deregulated businesses use their new found liberty to enhance profits without much or any regard for the public interest. The brass knuckles capitalist myth is that deregulated businesses will lift all boats and people and America will benefit from the horse and sparrow economic myth. That businesses seek profit with essentially no social conscience or concern for the environment or human harm is something else the elites never mention. They deny it when they are forced to comment, or just keep quiet when they can.

In fact, rock solid evidence says that the GOP and big businesses have successfully opposed and blocked nearly all environmental and gun regulations for decades. In the last two years, the Democrats have passed pro-environmental regulations over the objections of nearly all Republicans in congress and many or most of their big donors. And only recently has public opinion shifted to the point that some gun regulations are now being passed with some reluctant Republican support.

In other words, GOP capitalism policy is pro-business power and liberty, and anti-consumer-labor power and liberty. This complaint is almost as much a myth as the COVID vaccine myth.

Liberals persecute Christians, and intend to make Christianity illegal and impose tyrannical atheism on all Americans: These slanderous myths are straight out of the Christian nationalist (CN), Christofascist dogma book. I’ve posted multiple times here, e.g., this, on the openly bigoted, anti-civil liberties and anti-secularist theocratic nature of the CN power and wealth movement. The falsity of these complaints are on a par with the two above. Once again, a major Republican Party complaint is mostly lies and slanders. 

Some rank and file Christians complain that they suffer severe persecution, but exactly what that persecution is almost always fades into insignificance when the issue is pressed. Christians dominate federal, state and local governments, including the military, law enforcement, the courts and basically everything else. They howl about a business owner being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple or design a website for a gay couple as evidence of the severe persecution and dire threats they suffer. What a load of nonsense. They just want freedom to make money in commerce and at the same time the liberty to discriminate against anyone their Christian Sharia dogma says needs to be discriminated against and oppressed. 

Of course there are complaints about teaching about CRT or non-heterosexuality being evil atheist indoctrination or anti-Christian. Despite sometimes being badly handled by the left, there is no serious element of atheist indoctrination or anti-Christian dogma in those things. They are topics that apparently make many conservatives very uncomfortable. But that is not atheist indoctrination. When done properly it is history. 

I could go on like this, but this post is already WTL/DR (waaay too long/didn’t read). The point I want to make circles back to what Tucker Carlson was quoted as saying at the top of the post. The main thing that is tearing America apart and driving millions of people to support anti-democratic Christofascism is not mostly a matter of voter sincerity. In my opinion, it’s mostly a matter of voter ignorance and deceit, which is non-trivially present on both sides. But of the two sides, the problem is significantly worse on the radical right. IMO, there’s not major equivalence on this point.

Footnote: 

1. Now that is some real cynicism. In my opinion, (i) most rank and file Dems and Repubs (about 85% ?), vote in sincere belief in what is best for the country, but (ii) significantly more Repubs are significantly more misinformed and malinformed than Dems. IMO, the issue isn’t mostly voter sincerity, it’s mostly voter ignorance and deceit (think Tucker Carlson and Faux News). The data in the two graphs is some evidence that supports that opinion.